Genius Rulers of History?

NthBelisarius

What rulers in history have been what might be termed a genius? As in they were significantly skilled in most areas they attempted to act (i.e. administration, foreign policy etc).

I ask because this damnable idea for a timeline just won't get out of my head (seriously keeps coming back to the same basic points for the past month or so) but I know that having a king do all the things I want him to do would be a bit unrealistic, so I was hoping that having rulers win the genetic and educational lottery has actually happened.

Any ideas?
 

Pericles

I guess you could call Henry VII a genius.

Definitely his granddaughter Elizabeth I

And Ferdinand V and Isabella could be counted too. They did some pretty great things.
 

Jared

Badshah said:
I guess by your criteria Akbar would fit. Even though he was illiterate.:D
Click to expand...

Akbar wasn't illiterate: he was just better at reading people than words. :D

On a more serious note, Frederick the Great (Frederick II) of Prussia fits the bill pretty well. As does Alfred the Great of Wessex.
 

Direwolf22

Peter the Great I think should deserve a mention. His tour of Europe where he learned about navigation and Western government, as well as a knack for government and war.
 

eliphas8

Basil the Bulghar Slayer and Alexios I are my two picks for truly genius Byzantine rulers off the top of my head (I know more about their eras than most in the empire though, there may be others). Suleiman The Magnificent is definitely well into the genius category.
 

The Ubbergeek

Wikipedia seem to point that this Corvinus of Hungary(?) may have been one, an 'enlighted despot'.

I wonder if Hideyoshi Toyotomi could be one. Wasn't he nicknamed Old Fox or such?
 

Elfwine

Not all areas - he was a mediocre or fair general I think - but Philip II of France was one of the sharper blades in the drawer outside that.

Possibly Philip II of Macedon, but I'm leery of using the word there.

I think its reasonable for a ruler to be staggeringly good in most areas, but think of literary Sues - human beings have flaws and blind spots. And generally have to make mistakes early on to avoid continuing to repeat them.

But there are some really, really amazing rulers out there - it wouldn't be beyond belief to make someone in the category of those named.

Speaking of: Genghis Khan. Why did it take until this post to name him?
 

Emperor Constantine

What about Louis XIV? He successfully turned France into a centralized absolute Monarchy and made it the most powerful state in Europe.

And Catherine II the Great. She reformed the administration of Russia, gained control of the Crimea and Poland, and undertook large scale reform of the Church lands.

Or Suleiman the Magnificent. He was arguably the greatest ruler the Ottoman Empire had. He practically doubled the size of the Empire, reformed education, taxation and law, and oversaw what is considered the Ottoman's Golden age.

And finally, Marcus Aurelius. The Philosopher Emperor, he beat back every attempted Barbarian invasion,reformed the Administration and law, and oversaw a major defeat of the Parthian Empire.
 

Elfwine

Emperor Constantine said:
What about Louis XIV? He successfully turned France into a centralized absolute Monarchy and made it the most powerful state in Europe.
Click to expand...

And left it with all the long term effects of having spent so much blood and treasure on those wars. I think in the long run I'd argue Louis XIV weakened France, or at least the French monarchy.
 

Emperor Constantine

Elfwine said:
And left it with all the long term effects of having spent so much blood and treasure on those wars. I think in the long run I'd argue Louis XIV weakened France, or at least the French monarchy.
Click to expand...

Of course in the long run Louis XIV's actions weakened the economy, but the question wasn't about geniuses that created long-term solutions for their Nations.
 

Elfwine

Emperor Constantine said:
Of course in the long run Louis XIV's actions weakened the economy, but the question wasn't about geniuses that created long-term solutions for their Nations.
Click to expand...

"Made things worse in the long run." is not the mark of good administration, however. It's why I regard Alexander the Great as having ruined Macedon.
 

Shawn Endresen

Elfwine said:
Speaking of: Genghis Khan. Why did it take until this post to name him?
Click to expand...

Because he wasn't a dynast, even though he founded a dynasty. He went from eating mice to survive as a child through slavery and outlaw to world conqueror, without entering a city more than once or learning to read. There is literally no one like him at all.

For the purposes of the question, though, his grandson Kublai fits the bill. Not the military equal of his grandfather, but competent, and possessed of all the other requested gifts.
 

Elfwine

Shawn Endresen said:
Because he wasn't a dynast, even though he founded a dynasty. He went from eating mice to survive as a child through slavery and outlaw to world conqueror, without entering a city more than once or learning to read. There is literally no one like him at all.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the first post is being a dynast mentioned.

Just "rulers". And if Genghis can pull that off, OTL's standard of too suey is pretty flexible.
 

Yorel

I think Augustus qualifies: he is the one who turned Rome from a Republic to an Empire and built a system of governement that arguably lasted and worked rather well until the Third Century.

Charlemagne could be a good candidate for me: he built a quite large Empire and it had a pretty good administration. The Empire did collapse in 843 but I think you have to blame Charlemagne's son and grandchildren for that, not him.
Elfwine said:
Not all areas - he was a mediocre or fair general I think - but Philip II of France was one of the sharper blades in the drawer outside that.
Click to expand...
If you look at his early years, the main opponent he faced on the military side was Richard Lionheart, who was a very competent military leader and fighter: Philippe getting his butt kicked wasn't that much surprising. But let's not forget the fact he more or less conquered most of the Plantagenêts holdings in France and that one of the major events of his later reign was his victory at Bouvines. Also, some count among the many reasons (he had quite a few) that led Philippe to leave the Holy Land early the fact that Richard got the glory of taking Acre while it was Philippe who had done most of the work: only a theory as far I know though, but the fact it exists probably means Philippe was not a complete incompetent on the military side. Overall, I would conclude he was an average general for his time.

Still, he was a genius in other fields: one only needs to look at France before his reign and after his reign to see that.
 

Archon of Thessaly

I think Alfred the great would count for being both a good administrator, warrior and planting the seeds for what was to be "England."

Hywel Dda of wales should also count, for uniting the whole of wales. despite huge cultural and geographical differences, and also for making laws that, for the middle ages, were remarkably fair. He knew Latin, English and welsh, and his laws were fair on women, for example giving them the right to divorce their husband if he was abusive, and with their property and wealth split evenly between them. Many historians state that these were the most advanced laws anywhere in Europe until the modern era. He also protected Wales from English aggression, securing peace for a several years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top